“Completely bonkers and unconstitutional,” not to mention “really shocking,” is how a lawyer with expertise on First Amendment press freedoms described to us an order by Judge Crystal Wise Martin in Mississippi to remove an editorial criticizing a local mayor and city leaders after the officials sued.

Without so much as a hearing, Martin issued a restraining order against the Clarksdale Press Register. She did so in response to complaints by the mayor that a Feb. 8 opinion piece entitled “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust” unfairly implied that the city had broken the law by failing to send the newspaper notice about a meeting the City Council held regarding a proposed tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.

The newspaper posed the question, “Have commissioners or the mayor gotten kick-backs from the community?”

The answer to that question may well be no — but it’s utterly contrary to the long-established American way for the courts to use their power to censor what rubs government officials the wrong way. Outright lies that defame people can trigger lawsuits and damages. When public officials are the target, the standard is especially high: The plaintiff must prove that the speaker or writer knew the statement in question was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false.

The judge ignored all that precedent and law. Her ruling must not stand.

Speaking of which, this is an apt moment to reiterate some basic truths about press freedom at a time when the man with the most powerful megaphone in America froths at the mouths about journalists being enemies and seeks to dole out or deny basic access based on his opinion of a given outlet or reporter.

First case in point: President Donald Trump’s White House barred Associated Press reporters from access to the Oval Office to retaliate against the AP for not changing its style to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

Second: The Federal Communications Commission under Trump has reinstated complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC over their 2024 election coverage — alleging that fact-checking of debates, news interviews and even Kamala Harris’ “Saturday Night Live” appearance were biased and violated the broadcasters’ public interest obligations. The last FCC chair had already dismissed the complaints as contrary to the First Amendment.

Third: The same FCC’s Enforcement Bureau launched an investigation into Comcast for allegedly “promoting invidious forms of DEI in a manner that does not comply with FCC regulations.” Since when is it not the right of a private company to speak as it sees fit?

Fourth: Trump has threatened to remove legal residents on the basis of the speech in which they have engaged — promising, “We will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.”

Fifth: The administration is circulating lists of words banned for use by federal employees in their official capacity.

The Trump administration couldn’t be more directly contravening its own executive order, signed on Trump’s first day in office, saying “It is the policy of the United States to secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech.” To this administration, the more brazen the hypocrisy, the more you pretend it doesn’t exist.

_____

©2025 New York Daily News. Visit at nydailynews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.